Why Mitt Romney! My Top Ten.


Mitt Romney Central has produced nearly 5,000 posts seeking to educate, enlighten and advocate for principles of freedom and for American values, with a key focus on Mitt Romney, his message, and cause. There is plenty of substance to review for those wishing to troll through the writings that each of us have posted on MRC. That said, each of us have been encouraged to take a moment and highlight what matters most to us in this election, and how Mitt Romney personifies such – which is tough by any measure (and not for any absence of substance). National Review Online recently submitted a poster of 689 reasons to defeat Obama. Contrarily, we are trying to distill our Romney positives down to our top three to ten reasons – why to vote for Mitt! There is so much to choose from, evidenced by our prolific writings of the past.

As a prelude, this is America’s Defining Moment and America demands a leader that defines our times, one who has been prepared for this moment; not in accolades of flattery, but in the substance of wisdom derived from knowledge applied through a lifetime of experience.

Here goes -

1. Character: It matters, and Mitt Romney’s life is simply a reflection of his character, to every whit. You see it in his devotion and love for his wife, Ann, and his family; You see it in his personal associations, associations that have lasted and endured through many years; you see it in those whom he has served throughout his lifetime; you see it in those affected and touched through his many endeavors; and, you see it in his tenderness to those in need or who he has just met. You can know the true mettle or character of a man by his legacy, his family, his friends and associations measured over time. Those who stand with Mitt don’t just know of him, they know him, having seen him in both public and private moments – he is the same. I know Mitt, and I know those who have known him most of their lives – Mitt Romney stands uniquely measured as a man of great character, far surpassing any whom I have known. You can trust him!

2. Competence: Wisdom is gained through experiential knowledge; through failure and success. Mitt Romney’s life experiences in business, philanthropy, service and government are unequaled by any who has served or sought the office of President of the United States in my lifetime. Wisdom gained through experience combined with principles and values aligned with family, faith, God and country are the measure of Mitt Romney. His depth of knowledge, experience and wisdom define his competence, proven through a lifetime of success.

3. Capacity: The capacity for contribution can be measured in many ways. However, I have not known anyone with a greater well of capacity to serve our country as President of the United States. Capacity is enabled by ability and availability, and Mitt Romney has all. A recent article noted the sacrifice Mitt Romney has made to serve our Country, having forgone nearly $2 billion in earnings and wealth creation, that he might make himself available to serve others! Even so, the capacity of the man is measured by the depth of his willing heart to place country and countrymen, and his family and God first.

4. Principled: Principles are like friends wherein we tend to be attracted to those most aligned with our own. Mitt chooses friends of equal character and principles. The point that his family is a reflection to every whit of how he has lived his life is a further illustration of the very principles that guide him. I am aligned with and respect the principles that have shaped the life of Mitt Romney. His devotion to family, faith, God and country are without question. The manner in which his life reflects these devotions and the underlying foundations of honesty, integrity, ethics, trust and character are further evidenced in his legacy and what those who know him say about him.

Mitt and Ann Romney sit in a waiting room with family members before the debate begins at Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL. Oct 23, 2012 (Photo – AP)

5. Integrity: Mitt’s business career speaks volumes of his integrity. Without equivocation, a lifetime of business successes, failures and association reflect one’s integrity. Mitt Romney is unchallenged by any who have known or worked with him as a man of stellar integrity. This matters, especially in governing and in Washington DC, or in any Statehouse for that matter. Too many men and women of good integrity have been swayed and influenced by the power in governing offices. I have confidence that Mitt Romney will not be influenced by contrary forces, nor compromised by the flattery of office or the power therein. He is who he is and we can trust him, with assurance that he will stand resolute and duty bound. He takes none of this to himself, recognizing the service in office is just that service – it isn’t about him, nor will it ever be. His service is a testament to my confidence.

6. Experience: There is not much to say here other than no one has been so prepared with a lifetime of experience. Mitt Romney’s life’s preparation in business, philanthropy, and government is unparalleled. Further, his life’s experience has been filled with innumerable opportunities, and at times insurmountable challenges, and in each one he has equaled or surpassed expectations. His successes in life’s experiences, and his failures, have shaped him and guided him to this defining moment for America’s history.

7. Resolve: Mitt Romney, contrary to the main stream media, is a man firm and resolute in standards and principles, and the decisions he undertakes are aligned therewith. He is open-minded, but not open-principled. He listens, measures all points against principles and values that matter, and moves with effectiveness and resolution to what is right. He is not one to capitulate to the situational standards of society.

8. Values: Mitt Romney’s values are traditional American values in every way. America is at a crossroads and needs a leader who reflects the traditional values of family, faith, God and America. We require a leader who will stand resolute against the fiery darts of those who would undermine that which matters. We need someone to lead who will stand for traditional marriage, life, family, freedom and liberty; someone who can and will lead with purpose and perspective; someone who understands the needs of the one, and the needs of the many and serve them accordingly. We need a man who cares – such is Mitt Romney; his life is a reflection of such, as most recently reported in the media.

9. Leadership: Leadership demands certain critical skill sets, including but not limited to, listening, analytics, problem solving, decision making, knowledge and the capacity to assimilate information, communication, empathy, wisdom and experience. Mitt Romney has proven himself in each of these areas. Whether in business, charitable service or government, he has clearly demonstrated leadership. You cannot lead where you have not been, and Mitt Romney leads. Whether with companies he started, or with the Olympics, or in the Statehouse as Governor, he didn’t ask of anyone what he wasn’t willing to do himself. A leader doesn’t mandate or direct, they inspire, motivate and draw people to a common objective. Mitt Romney will never ask of anyone what he doesn’t ask of himself!

10. Intelligence: Having been accused of being “wicked smart”, Mitt Romney is brilliant. His capacity to garner and retain knowledge, assimilate information and simplify complexity is unmeasured. I have seen him in innumerable circumstances where he has illustrated, without arrogance or condescension, his intelligence. His want to understand and his capacity to retain information, facts and data is amazing. He has a proven track record of applying what he knows in the highest and best use and for the purposes intended. In business it served the interests of his investors, business associates and clients; in service, his counsel, advice and leadership touched the lives of those whom he served in a significant manner; as Governor, the people of Massachusetts were greatly rewarded with a fiscally responsible government that served the people well, including better education and lower taxes with quality government service.

Simply summarized, Mitt Romney is everything Barack Obama isn’t!

Mitt Talking Points

For those of us talking to friends about why Mitt over Obama, I thought I’d compile a few talking points:


1. National Debt.

national debt

–Obama has significantly added to our now $16 trillion in national debt and has had over $1 trillion in deficits in each of his four years, after promises to cut deficit in half. Obama still has no plan, unless you count the glossy photo brochure with re-tread unfulfilled promises from 2008. Romney / Ryan do have a plan.


2. Bipartisanship.

–Mitt has been a model of bi-partisanship, which will be needed to reduce the deficit. Obama has blamed a GOP Congress for his failures.

3. Mitt’s a Model of Success.

–Mitt’s business, personal and government life are models of success. He’s actually done what Obama has promised: balanced budgets, turned broken enterprises around. Obama can’t seem to get past his own pride.

4. Four More Years?

–We have experienced 4 years of Obama. To expect better the 2d term is, by definition, insane. He knows he can’t change Washington from the outside.

5. Historically Low Employment.

–3.5 years of unemployment over 8%. If people hadn’t left workforce unemployment today would be over 10%.


6. Obama’s Work Ethic.

–Obama seems to show up about half the time (famously missing security briefings, unbelievable number of golf games). Mitt is already preparing just in case he wins the election, so he’ll be ready to hit the ground running.

7. Obamacare.

–This is our last chance to unwind Obamacare. Otherwise all the taxes, future healthcare rationing, lack of doctors and other problems will be permanent.

8. Supreme Court.

–Between 2 and 3 Supreme Court justices are likely to retire during the next 4 years, a liberal, a conservative and a swing justice. The next president will likely stack the court for a generation, either right or left.

9. Mitt Has a Plan.

–Mitt has a 5 point plan for economic success, Obama only attacks Mitt; does not have a real plan. Mitt’s plan: expand energy, build workers’ skills, cut deficit, focus on small business, promote fair trade. Obama’s: raise taxes, keep spending.

10. Stuff Obama Says (Odd Priorities; Egotism).

–Stuff Obama says: 4 deaths in Libya were a “bump in the road.” “If you have a small business, you didn’t build that.” Conservatives cling to guns and religion. He tells the Des Moines Register he has a plan to deal with immigration but wants to keep it off the record. Telling the Russian president he’ll have more flexibility when he doesn’t face re-election. I could go on.

11. Newspaper Endorsements.

–Reno Gazette Journal and a slew of other papers just endorsed Mitt.

12. Weak Foreign Policy.

–Obama’s foreign policy isn’t working; projecting an image of weakness has invited attack. First US ambassador to be killed in 30 years after security assistance was requested; the White House was alerted but did nothing while a drone watched. Stories out of the administration were inconsistent for weeks.

13. Twelve Million Jobs.

–Mitt has promised to create 12 million jobs in his first term.

14. President Biden?

–If anything happens to Obama, Joe Biden would be president.

I know there are others. My imagination tends to wane in the wee hours of the night. Add to comments what your talking points are…

Mitt Romney’s Plan – Protect the Middle Class with Competence, Measure and Integrity

Mitt Romney will not raise taxes on the middle class, nor will he lower the tax contributions of the most wealthy!

Today, David Gregory interviewed Mitt and Ann Romney on Meet the Press (see the full interview below). This is the first time in the history of Meet the Press that the wife of a a Presidential Candidate was also interviewed. And in spite of Gregory’s continued public pursuit of an agenda seemingly shaped by the disbelieving and jaundiced left, both Mitt and Ann Romney revealed their true character, charm, capacity and competence!

It is apparent that the media seems to struggle with the Romney’s constancy amid the situational standards of our society – the anomalous Romney’s live and serve by constants and principles of integrity and truth with a sincere and tangible sense of duty. They do not succumb to the typical political pandering and posturing we see in many of today’s politicians. It is human nature to project on others what we see in ourselves, hence the media’s challenge with Mitt and Ann Romney. What the media tries to project on Mitt and Ann is wholly inconsistent with who Mitt and Ann are. We get a sense that the media is so blinded by the beams in their own eyes that they struggle to see the sincere strength and resolute nature of Mitt and Ann Romney, and their foundations for dutiful service; they are truly committed to a cause greater than self. Mitt stated such in his interview – it is about serving the nation, fixing our economy and restoring foundational principles of freedom and liberty! No more, no less.

,

Ann expressed how life’s experiences are tutorial in shaping our capacity to empathize with those in need, and to the surprise of the interviewer it had nothing to do with our station in life. As a cancer survivor I get it! Ann Romney, and Mitt by virtue of shared experiences with Ann, clearly understand the suffering of others and how to succor and serve those in need. Further, after the Republican Convention in Tampa and the tender expressions of so many touched by Mitt and Ann Romney, the story of unpurchased service by the Romney’s should no longer be challenged, but elevated as an example for all to follow. Bill Bennett said it best today after the Meet the Press interview; paraphrased, conservatives are more charitable and more giving, they are more willing to offer selfless compassionate service than their liberal counterparts. If anyone wants to consider the point, look to the charitable service and contributions of the Romney’s compared to that of the Obama’s and Biden’s combined. The liberals seem to want to be far more generous with the taxpayer’s money (our money) than their own.

Mr. Gregory then began to press Governor Romney on his economic recovery/jobs plan, seeking for greater granularity. I find it fascinating that when Mitt Romney put a 59 point plan together the media was cynical; when he distilled it down to a more simple five point plan, they demanded more specifics. It is clear that the media is lacking in its capacity to understand, or they just have a specific agenda as the PR machine for the sitting President.

The message came through loud and clear from Mitt Romney today, as it was repeated no less than three times – Mitt Romney will not raise taxes on the middle class, nor will he lower the tax contributions of the most wealthy! Among other things, Mitt went on to juxtapose his foreign policy agenda against Obama’s biggest foreign policy failure, a nuclear Iran.

What I find of interest is a want from the media for Mitt Romney to be granular in his plans without a similar press to Obama, who has yet to present a credible budget in 4 years, or a plan to fix our economy, and he is the President of the United States! What I do know is that I can look to Mitt Romney’s track record and history and know that he will govern and execute a plan based upon principles and pragmatism. He has done it innumerable times and will apply the same disciplines as President. His past is prologue which is equally said for Obama. Only in Mitt Romney’s case his past successes are prologue for future successes, and Obama’s past failures are prologue for future failures.

It’s Competence, Stupid!




It’s Competence, Stupid!
Managerial excellence, not ideological purity, is what the GOP primary is all about.

By Jim Geraghty

New York Times columnist David Brooks was wowed by Mitt Romney Friday, offering a rave review of the candidate “talking about his success in business and in running the Olympics. He was talking about how you assemble a team of people with complimentary skills. How you use data and analysis to replace opinion. How you set benchmarks and how often you should perform self-evaluation… It opened up a vista of how government might operate.”

This brought an unimpressed reaction from a closeted conservative editor at a Washington publication, who thought he heard an echo of another former governor of Massachusetts:

Now, come on. Doesn’t that sound, more than anything, like a Republican version of Mike Dukakis? “I can make government work. It’s not about ideology. It’s about competence.” Now, granted, competence might be a saleable message right about now. But it’s also one that is easy to parody, difficult to sustain in the face of hole-poking criticism, and, as far as I can remember, has never been very successful among a Republican electorate. We simply assume our candidates are more or less competent, I think, and move quickly on to other things. Romney is going to have a tough sell if he relies on competence as his major selling point. ‘Managerial excellence’ is not going to persuade me, and I am, right now, completely open to persuasion, a position I have not been in at this point in a presidential election cycle since I have been voting.

Allow me to play devil’s advocate and offer the argument that, at this moment, for conservatives seeking to choose their nominee in 2008, it really is competence, not ideology.

[Pause to dodge tomatoes hurled by readers who interpret this as a de facto defense of Michael Dukakis.]

For starters, let me offer the even more controversial argument that, ideologically, there’s not a huge difference among the four leading Republican candidates:

[Pause as all four campaigns indignantly shout "WHAT? HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT?!?", and hurl another barrage of tomatoes.]

As it has been well-documented, all of them have their issues where they disagree with conservative orthodoxy:

Giuliani: As mayor, liberal on guns, abortion, and gay rights; insists he would be a federalist on these issues as president.

Romney: Running in 1994 and 2002, sounded as un-conservative as necessary to win in the state of Massachusetts. Wife donated to Planned Parenthood.

Thompson: A federalist on tort reform; supported McCain-Feingold; did the 17 hours of lobbying work for the family-planning group 16 years back.

McCain: Campaign finance; Gang of 14 deal on judges; immigration-reform deal.

In the end, if you’re a down-the-line conservative, it’s pick your poison: Figure out on which issues you’re least upset by dissent from the conservative orthodoxy, and vote for the guy who toes the line on your top issues. Or vote for some second-tier candidate whose chances of winning are slim to none (and Slim just left town, as Dan Rather would say).

But before conservatives start denouncing the field as a herd of RINOs, let’s observe that on most of the other issues — particularly economic and foreign policy, and some legal-social ones — there’s a conservative consensus.

Does anyone think that a President Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, or McCain would not pick Supreme Court justices in the mold of John Roberts or Samuel Alito? Does anyone think they would try to fight their own base on public financing of abortions? Does anyone think they would raise taxes, or try to enact Hillary-style socialized medicine, or agree to meet with the world’s rogue state dictators in their first year in office? (And does anyone doubt that any of the Democratic candidates would do the opposite?)

At the end of the day, on a conservatism scale of one to ten — one being Lincoln Chafee and ten being Rush Limbaugh — all of these guys score about a seven or an eight. None of them are the second coming of Reagan, but all of them would be fairly conservative, and perhaps would be a breath of fresh air.

In fact, the contrast with our current president is illuminating. For as much as President Bush‘s policy differences with his base (especially on immigration and spending) have hurt him, I would suspect what is truly driving conservatives batty is what is now incontrovertible evidence that Bush is a poor manager.

A couple of vividly illustrative examples:

Rumsfeld’s Departure: One week before the election, Bush repeated to wire-service reporters an oft-declared pledge that he intended to keep Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon until he leaves office in 2009. The day after the election, Bush announced Rumsfeld’s departure and named Gates his successor. Entirely separate from the merits of whether Rumsfeld should stay or go, can anyone argue that it was wise to explicitly and repeatedly promise that he would stay, only to drop him right after the election? If Rumsfeld was already on his way out (as the readiness of Gates suggested), announce it before the election so that GOP candidates didn’t have to defend an unpopular Pentagon chief and could talk up Gates. The timing resulted in the worst of all worlds — GOP candidates having to defend Rumsfeld, the widespread perception that Bush lied, and the perception that the Democratic victory had instantly forced changes.

Alberto Gonzales: Having seen contradictory, confused, or incoherent answers to inquiries from the beginning of the U.S. attorney mess, Republicans don’t want to defend Gonzales, National Review wants him to resign, and conservative blog
gers want the “ Fredo” of the Bush White House to be taken out fishing. But he stays, despite one appalling appearance before Congressional panels after another, ensuring a continuing controversy. Fair or not, Bush creates the perception that he values personal friendship and loyalty over competence and good judgment. And on that note…

Harriet Miers: ‘Nuff said.

The timing and manner of the immigration fight: By early this year, Bush’s approval rating had dropped below 40 percent, down to his base of solid conservatives. And then he decided to advocate, loudly and repeatedly, for legislation passionately despised by that base. Whether or not Bush’s view was right, it was the wrong fight at the wrong time. It’s not unprecedented for a president to oppose his base — Clinton did so on welfare reform and NAFTA — but fighting for those idiosyncratic priorities has to be done carefully and respectfully. Throughout the immigration debate, Bush and his allies demonstrated the opposite — after its first defeat, Bush brushed off the vote and dismissed the opposition arguments, declaring, “I’ll see you at the bill signing.” His secretary of homeland security contended that the opposition wanted the death penalty for illegal immigrants, and Senate ally Lindsey Graham lamented to the New York Times about the “racism” in the debate — all of which alienated and infuriated conservatives at a time when the White House needed all the friends it could get.

Finally surging in Iraq: Reports that the surge has triggered tangible benefits in Iraq is great. But there’s a nagging question in the minds of those of us who want to see success in Iraq — why did the surge concept only get tried at the beginning of 2007? By the end of 2003 it was clear that Iraq would have a persistent, violent insurgency. Where were these additional troops and more aggressive tactics in 2004, 2005 and 2006? In retrospect, didn’t the administration waste three years’ worth of American patience with policies and military leaders who essentially treaded water? Or could these tactics and reinforcements and General Petraeus’s leadership have only worked in this moment? If we’re seeing positive results with 155,000 troops that we didn’t see with 120,000 troops, didn’t the “send more troops” crowd deserve more attention from the White House in retrospect?

Some of these pratfalls have ideological elements, but all of them were at least exacerbated by bad management — bad communications, bad judgment, bad analysis, bad self-evaluation. A future Republican president who is marginally less conservative, but a better manager, may actually achieve a great deal more for the Right than President Bush has.

Jim Geraghty blogs at campaignspot.nationalreview.com.

Jim Geraghty is a regular contributor to National Review Online and National Review . In addition to writing columns for National Review, Geraghty also has a weblog on the site named TKS and is a former reporter for States News Service.

During the 2004 US Presidential election, Geraghty was often critical of Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry. At the time his weblog used the name “The Kerry Spot”. Geraghty reported on the Killian documents and Rathergate stories on a daily basis on behalf of National Review and was critical of CBS and Dan Rather. Geraghty was one of the self described Pajamahadeen.

Starting in March 2005, Geraghty has been posting to TKS from Turkey, where he is living as an expatriate.

External links